Jump to content
 

Parking Lot - California Deluxe Single (March 17th)


NotNow

Recommended Posts

Just now, Spunky Speedo said:

Who wants to be on Team Speedo? We just shit talk everyone and don't hold any allegiance!

Probably gonna have some jackets made, they're gonna be pretty hip.

Me!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Champ182 said:

Who is on whose team? In the pro-Cali/Feldmann corner we have Ghent leading the charge with Jar Jar, Ghent's Brother, Watcher, am I missing anyone? If we're on the other team do we have to have Oliver as our coach or can we just just be free-agents? (no offense Oliver)

I think your leader should be Poet Dan or Kyle. I'd say you, Champ, but you're a bit too nice and reasonable to lead the others.

Oliver is just a contrarian who wants to argue. He really doesn't fit on Team Tom, does he?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nasa said:

No, I meant the silliness of not having listened to one of blink's more Tom-influenced records in years yet coming on here often to talk about wanting Tom back. An example for your side in this board war!!!!1!!1

Honestly it puts some perspective on whether some fans are letting their dislike for California cloud their vision of what blink would be like with Tom back. 

 

I definitely said 'in the car' with the physical album.

My drunken rant may not have made that easily clear, but nonetheless that's what I meant.

And I want Tom back and not because I'm a Tombot but because I'm a lifelong Hoppusbot and Tom brings the best out in Mark. Skiba is just a bitch in multiple ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MattSkibbasuxatguitar said:

I definitely said 'in the car' with the physical album.

My drunken rant may not have made that easily clear, but nonetheless that's what I meant.

And I want Tom back and not because I'm a Tombot but because I'm a lifelong Hoppusbot and Tom brings the best out in Mark. Skiba is just a bitch in multiple ways.

Haha I know, I was just teasing you. :) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, JarJarBlinks said:

Good lord dude it doesn't matter.  The point is that Tom didn't give a fuck about Neighborhoods or his band and just wanted that ca$$h to fund his stupid movies and alien books.

He wrote most of the songs and brought most of the ideas to the table. He clearly cared about the album. He wanted to do it his way and his way only which is of course a shit and destructive move. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, NotNow said:

You were literally saying Travis wasn't talking about masters literally and saying he was really talking about the mixes, not the masters even though he used the word masters as justification of your idea that Tom never listened to any changes mark or Travis made. Pretty sure no one knew what you were talking about, we were all confused because you kept trying to say Tom didn't listen to the mixes of neighborhoods because Travis said he didn't listen to the masters.

jordidanen95 said something here: 

i answered his post, pointed out why there's no contradiction. i did not talk (or think) about masters, mixes, rough demos, song ideas, pro tools files, i never went into the technical details, because in my opinion that part wasn't that important in travis' original sentence. travis talked about tom's shitty attitude, and i thought about tom's shitty attitude. (tom himself admitted that there were songs on neighborhoods he had not heard before the album came out, because the song was all mark. don't we remember that neighborhoods were recorded separately, and everyone's main problem with tom was the way he treated his bandmates?) just because we have this self-appointed tech genius we can't include a word in a post, because he will automatically turns everything into tech talk, and pompously unfold that our argument is invalid? it's quite irritating that i told him what i was talking about, and 10+ posts later you are still talking about in every reply that "you mentioned a word!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

this whole thing was like i'd say "travis was mad at tom, because tom recorded the songs in a separate studio", then someone says "incorrect, tom recorded on a macbook, which is not a studio, i know it because i listened to all pet shop boys albums on a macbook".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zoltan said:

jordidanen95 said something here: 

i answered his post, pointed out why there's no contradiction. i did not talk (or think) about masters, mixes, rough demos, song ideas, pro tools files, i never went into the technical details, because in my opinion that part wasn't that important in travis' original sentence. travis talked about tom's shitty attitude, and i thought about tom's shitty attitude. (tom himself admitted that there were songs on neighborhoods he had not heard before the album came out, because the song was all mark. don't we remember that neighborhoods were recorded separately, and everyone's main problem with tom was the way he treated his bandmates?) just because we have this self-appointed tech genius we can't include a word in a post, because he will automatically turns everything into tech talk, and pompously unfold that our argument is invalid? it's quite irritating that i told him what i was talking about, and 10+ posts later you are still talking about in every reply that "you mentioned a word!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

this whole thing was like i'd say "travis was mad at tom, because tom recorded the songs in a separate studio", then someone says "incorrect, tom recorded on a macbook, which is not a studio, i know it because i listened to all pet shop boys albums on a macbook".

That's not correct, you said all those things in purpose, you tweaked the details, and started to tweak too the official version of the band putting your own input of "maybes" and "guessings". Then, someone says "hey, you're wrong, pal", and you start this cry baby thing -As you did with the producer debate, because, yeah, you wanted us to believe that a producer is what you think it is and not what actually is, and that, hey, maybe song-writing credits is just something that everybody gives away because, yeah, is not a big deal..., then someones call you out for that, in good terms, and you start to dramatizing all over and insulting. Oh, poor Zoltan-.  I only said that I preffer to stick to the band's words in that matter, rather than confuse terms and starting to re-interpretate what Travis maybe wanted or didn't want to mean -he just meant what he meant-. And then you get this idiculously irritated by that. Is nuts, specially because we agree on the same part: Tom didn't have the same interest as the two other members.

 

Also, Kay responded to jordidanen95 saying this:

And his reaction was light years away more mature than yours. No insults, no drama, no nothing. He accepted that "corection" and actually ended up giving his opinion with no problem.

Can you see the differences between him and you?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you accused me that i twist my words (i only rephrase the same thing over and over, because you try to misunderstand every version), while in fact you're twisting my words. where did i say that "writing credits is just something that everybody gives away"? i said there are cases when someone gets credit for nothing, e.g. if it is part of a deal... i said it's not illegal, it is a possibility.

have you heard about ghostwriters? they write songs, lyrics, anything, and their name will be nowhere officially. instead, the writer credit goes to someone who did not write anything. should i explicate it to avoid your wordcrime accusations? ghostwriters (and the occurance of ghostwriting itself) are usually kept in secret. they write songs, but their name won't be credited. their client (who buys their work and the rights) can be listed as the only songwriter, even if he/she hasn't worked on the song at all. do you believe it? wow, someone can buy himself/herself writer credits!

now try to believe it too: since we know it's possible and legal to get credits for money (see: the case of ghostwriters), it is also possible and legal to get credits for free. i mean you don't have to pay for it. you can just ask for it (for example) as part of a producer contract. it is a valid possibility. you can't confute it.

someday you may understand that right next to your "world of facts" (or "world of lies") there is a "world of possibilities". you don't need to have facts, evidences to know that something can exist. in this world we have the option i mentioned months ago (and in the previous paragraph): a producer can get songwriter credits even if he never wrote the songs... do you see now what i was talking about the whole time?

let's make it clear again: we have an "official fact" stating feldmann is a co-writer, and you assume it is because he co-wrote the album. if we only had this one factor, we could say it is the absolute truth... but, wait, since we know that this industry is not always honest, we can let in those awful, killjoy "possibilities". maybe feldmann got his credits from the clause of his contract?! now we have 2 factors. if you know anything about logic, you can see that we have 2 states of a case. both states are uncertain. maybe he co-wrote, maybe he got it for "free"... you have said you don't care about "madeup stories", you'd rather believe a lie. but it's just ignorant behavior. you should not ignore something that is possible. i don't ignore it, that's why i say you are wrong, you don't know the truth, you can't treat your version as the truth until it is not confirmed without a doubt. we have not heard enough details to know how the co-writer credit thing happened.

feldmann is like schrodinger's cat. he's maybe a real co-writer, or maybe he just seems like a co-writer. until you open the box, both states are equally true (or equally false). and in this case the box opening would mean that we find an unambiguous answer.

 

i used the same logic in all my theories. you thought they are just madeup bullshit. maybe they are. but they are possible... i think the official stories are real bullshit. but your stories based on them are also possible... just try to understand that your "official opinion" is not stronger or more valid than my "bullshit". they are equally uncertain, and none of them can be proven without more details.

 

i don't share my theories to "change the history". i just want you to get off your high horse, because the history you accept is just as uncertain as the one you can't accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...